Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Diombera, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Dramane Diombera, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and denied Diombera's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the appeals court dismissed Diombera's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7738

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Dramane Diombera, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and denied Diombera's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the appeals court dismissed Diombera's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    30 views2 pages

    United States v. Diombera, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Dramane Diombera, a federal prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and denied Diombera's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. As such, the appeals court dismissed Diombera's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7738

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    DRAMANE DIOMBERA,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston.
    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CR-99-750; CA-04-567)

    Submitted: December 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 28, 2005

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Dramane Diombera, Appellant Pro Se.


    Deborah Brereton Barbier,
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Dramane Diombera, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000) motion.

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

    a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Diombera has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Diomberas motion for a certificate

    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    We dispense with oral

    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately


    presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like